Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com> writes:
In the new version, this is how range_iterator is defined:
namespace boost { template< typename C > struct range_iterator { typedef BOOST_RANGE_DEDUCED_TYPENAME mpl::if_< BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME is_const<C>::type, BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME range_const_iterator< BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME remove_const<C>::type
::type, BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME range_mutable_iterator<C>::type >:: type type; };
} // namespace boost
Well, I think the logic is probably right but I have to say the code looks a lot more complex than it probably ought to. There are lots of places where the current code could profit from refactoring; this might be another such place. For example, if you make range_iterator do the right thing always, (maybe) you could spell range_const_iterator as follows: template <class T> struct range_const_iterator : range_iterator<T const> {}; It's just an example; you have to check it to make sure it works out. Anyway, I suggest you look hard for simplifying refactorings before you commit a big rewrite. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com